How do you like that! I feel like my head has been buried in the ground or something. I was reading in my KJV and while I was reading this verse, I thought when had I read "child" here in the verse? Well, I looked it up in the Greek and sure enough it says "child", but nope in all the other translations that I have in the software, it has "servant". Another case in point, where some other translations state that they follow that Greek that they purport to follow, but nope, they did not in actuality.
Do you ever just hold your Bible in such a loving way realizing just how precious it is? Truly a love letter from God Himself.
Understatement.

[peopleoftheway]

For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, Acts 4:27

Thats another subtle denial of the Deity of the LORD Jesus Christ. (Gen 3:1)

Same things in Acts 4:30
By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus

child again replaced with servant.

I'm glad that your search for truth is bringing light to Gods Word in your life.

Greetings to you!
Well, I was at a Christian Bookstore today, educating myself on KJV Bibles, and there was a study KJV Bible and I looked that verse up (among other things), and there as a footnote it was saying that it should read "servant". But earlier today when I looked it up in the Greek, the definition there was indeed "child".
But even more, I was thinking about this study Bible and others and how it seems various Bibles spend a lot of time trying to make it sound like the right word isn't really there, but there is a better word for it.
Even like in the NET Bible, Reader's Edition, they have a lot of footnotes that make a statement such as, Many manuscripts have this word, xxxx, but they elected NOT to put it into their Bible. Very strange. But regarding the NET Bible, I bought one a while ago, the Reader's Edition, and I marvel at the quality of the Bible itself, and the amazing maps they have in the back (truly), but when I started reading Matthew, I was so disheartened, very strange, every time where it should something like, and Jesus knowing their thoughts...well, the phrase was reworded to make it sound like Jesus when he realized what they were talking about, etc., a real downplay on Jesus' deity of knowing their thoughts. It seems whoever translated Matthew really had to work hard to change this carefully. It was so heartbreaking to me to see that.
I am rambling again. Grin.
I do that so well.

[chette777]

Servant is never child and a child is never servant. the new Greek interpretations they cahnge the Greek meanings. for example in Act 14 the Greek word dios(eastern text, TR etc) equal to our English word deity in th KJV, has become the Greek word zues in the Western text, vaticanicus, etc...) NIV et al newer versions. the newer Greek text is what the Study portion is using and printing in the footnotes. While the KJV Bible is using the TR and other older more reliable Greek text. Just another way to confuse people into believing there in no correct Bible.

The newer Greek text change the word dios to zues because they want you to think the god they were worshiping was Zues not Jupiter as the KJV translators translated the word dios which just means a deity. the Translators put Jupiter for dios becasue in the city of Iconuium was the headquarters for Jupiter worship.

[peopleoftheway]

Just out of my own interest Doxa, was the Study Bible you were looking at published by Zondervan perhaps ? What Chette says is correct, the text used for modern versions is corrupted with Philosophy. In regards to reading Matthew in modern versions and being disheartened, fear not this is a great truth in your life, for what you once would never have seen, By the Grace of God your eyes and your heart have been opened to the deception, the stronghold has been broken.

[stephanos]

Doxa, I really feel you here. This babylon of a society we live in is so designed to pull us away from our faith in God's preserved Word. I have had so many discussions in my life with those of other faiths, that seemed in the end, to be solely about the fact that I stand on the KJB as the Word of God (the distaste, and even hate, that people have for us KJB believers, to me is evidence enough that it IS God's Word). There is so much confusion in this world, that we as Christians, should pay no mind to. The funny thing though, is that whenever I've encountered those that attack my faith in Jesus Christ, or my stance for God's Word, the only thing that those individuals accomplished in me is an even stronger grip upon God's Word. I now feel that the ONLY thing that remains in this life for me to go to for truth, is the King James Bible! I sleep well at night simply because I, without a doubt, have the Word of God. Though my enemies surround me like wolves (often times in sheeps clothing) I have peace, and hope, solely in this great Book. So, Doxa, do not be dismayed at what you see in so-called Christian book stores. Be a light for the King James Bible.

"We thank you oh Lord our God. Thy Word is Truth. Let us shine forth this truth as we serve your purpose, unto your glory. In Jesus' name, Amen."

for Jesus' sake,
Stephen

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by chette777

the new Greek interpretations they cahnge the Greek meanings. for example in Act 14 the Greek word dios(eastern text, TR etc) equal to our English word deity in th KJV, has become the Greek word zues in the Western text, vaticanicus, etc...) NIV et al newer versions. the newer Greek text is what the Study portion is using and printing in the footnotes. While the KJV Bible is using the TR and other older more reliable Greek text..,The newer Greek text change the word dios to zues because they want you to think the god they were worshiping was Zues not Jupiter as the KJV translators translated the word dios which just means a deity. the Translators put Jupiter for dios becasue in the city of Iconuium was the headquarters for Jupiter worship.

Acts 14:12
And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius,
because he was the chief speaker.

Acts 14:13
Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city,
brought oxen and garlands unto the gates,
and would have done sacrifice with the people.

Chette, what you write is unclear and does not seem to be correct. The names Jupiter and Zeus are Roman and Greek equivalents for the same deity. There is no word dios==God in either the TR or the modern version Greek text in the verse, in fact there is no variant at all in the Greek text on this word. Likely due to the etymology the general Latin word for God (Dei) is similar to the Greek word for this particular deity (dia == dyzooce). I looked particularly at verse 12 in my double-checking on this question.

In the lexicon you can see the word:

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/...03&version=kjv
dyzooce
Jupiter or Zeus = "a father of helps"
the national god of the Greeks and corresponds to the Roman Jupiter

This does not translate to "diety" in the KJV, it translates to the name of the particular false deity of the region. Now it is true that Jupiter was the supreme false deity of the Romans.

John Gill

And they called Barnabas Jupiter,.... The supreme God; it may be because that Barnabas was the oldest man, of the tallest stature, and largest bulk, and made the best figure; whereas Paul was younger, of a low stature, and mean appearance:

and Paul Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker; Mercury was the god of eloquence, and the messenger of the gods, and the interpreter of their will {r}; Paul being chiefly concerned in preaching and speaking to the people, they called him by the name of this God: the Jews had a doctor in their schools, whom they called Myrbdmh vad, "the chief of the speakers" {s}.

{r} Vid Macrob. Saturnal. l. 1. c. 17, 19. {s} Juchasin, fol. 45. 2. & 46. 1.

We have to be careful that our criticisms of the modern versions are sound. They have so many corruptions and errors and blunders, we do not need to make some that aren't there . In this Jupiter can be considered a better contextual translation than Zeus but it would be hard to call call any of the versions wrong.

To be sure, I double-checked the apparatus and they showed no variant on the verse other than a participle in the verse that means "truly, certainly, surely, indeed".

There are a few places on the web you can check something like this very easily, without having to know a word of Greek. One is to look at the King James with Strong's numbers and compare it with the NAS with Strong's numbers, e.g. on Crosswalk. Another is the Laparola site http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php and the similar Zhubert site http://www.zhubert.com/bible?source=...f=acts+14%3A12 . Also there is the John Hurt Greek Bible site http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B44C014.htm#V12 . On the last site you can see the word "men" in the TR but not the WH text and you can see the word dia is the same.

The word dios would be a Latin word, so you would not expect to see it in the Greek text. In most cases the word for God in Greek will be qeovß (Theos).

Shalom,
Steven

[chette777]

I have looked at some Greek text. the dios a greek word is in the oldest Eastern text. while Zues is in the alexandrian greek texts.

I know that Jupioter is the Roman name of a god and that Zues is tha Greek name of a god. however the inscription found in archeology cearly say Jupiter for that City not Zues. they may or may not be the same god. that is still debatable even by some secular sources.

My Bible says Jupiter and the new translations say Zues. you can use any you want. But from what I found is dios (a Greek word) was in the older text used for the KJV. While Zues was inserted later by the Alexandrian scribes.

but the word Dios just means deity. Zues would be literally translated Zues. Strongs has dyzooce and so do few TR MM used but all the alexandrian text say Zues. and it is not spelled dysooce it is spelled Zues. and the pronunciation of Dios is not dyzooce either. it just depends on whose greek your following. in Strongs dyzooce is the pronouciation not the greek spelling, he shows the Greek spelling as Zues.

Ruckman and others believe in the old manuscripts that use Dios. I checked out the sources Ruckman suggested and found the greek word Dios not dyzooce or zues. the last two according to him is a later corruption. See Ruckmans Commentary on ACTS chapter 14 for some info. There is dia but only as a derivitive. Theos is God, Dios is deity, Dia can be both, Zues is zues. I have three Greek texts a TR text dios, Strongs Zues and Stephenas Dia. Three different words so you have to prayerfully make a chioce which Greek OR like Ruckman says, this is one of those instances where English is clear and you can throw out the Greek. It is Jupiter but that the Greek word was Dios (deity) and the translators made sure we knew which it was by putting Jupiter there without Italics for that was the deity of that city.

[stephanos]

Originally Posted by chette777

OR like Ruckman says, this is one of those instances where English is clear and you can throw out the Greek.

AMEN!

Peace and Love,
Stephen

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

First a Stongs "phonetic spelling" correction from the previous post.
dzyooce == (not) dyzooce

b-greek reference
"the DI before the vowel/diphthong coming to be pronounced ZEU-"

Which, if accurate, would have a lot to do with the forms Dia (Acts 14:12) and especially Dios (Acts 14:13) being pronounced Zeus.

b-greek
" ZEUS .. is the proper name (in the nominative) of the chief god of the Greek pantheon."

Originally Posted by chette777

I have looked at some Greek text. the dios a greek word is in the oldest Eastern text. while Zues is in the alexandrian greek texts. ... what I found is dios (a Greek word) was in the older text used for the KJV. While Zues was inserted later by the Alexandrian scribes. .

This would make the apparatus sources currently being used incorrect, since they show the same word in Byzantine and TR and Alexandrian texts and do not indicate a variant. While the word is given as dia (v12) and dios (v13) in the sources Strong's gives the transliteration as dzyooce. This is discussed above and below, as Strong may give us a dubious Greek letter substitution.

Perhaps we can agree that in the cultural and linguistic context of the Greek, a word for the 'supreme god' is a word for Zeus. While the comparable god among the Romans is Jupiter.

Chette, could you indicate specifically the Greek texts that have a different word than that in the Alexandrian text ? I will be happy to examine the question more closely but I would need something more exact than "some Greek text". The name of a text, the name of a manuscript.

When you refer to "oldest Eastern text" some may view that as a reference to Codex Bezae and I certainly hope that would not be meant as a substantive reference. Although it could still be checked just like the Byzantine MSS. The apparatus shows no Greek variants.

Originally Posted by chette777

I know that Jupioter is the Roman name of a god and that Zues is tha Greek name of a god. however the inscription found in archeology cearly say Jupiter for that City not Zues ...

Which is a good argument for the superiority of the King James Bible over the modern versions in the verses in Acts.

Originally Posted by chette777

the word Dios just means deity. Zues would be literally translated Zues.

Your first phrase is about Greek to English. You seem to be denying the possibility (or probability) that the Roman (Latin) Deity Jupiter could be written in a Greek text with the Greek dia as a reference to their specific deity Zeus. If such an equivalence is sensible then the KJB translation to Jupiter is perfectly fine, the very best translation.

A problem for your understanding on this is that Paul was also called the name of a specific Deity, Mercurius in the text. Again based on the Roman (Latin) Deity, while the Greek is the equivalent, Hermes. The same type of side-translation, or culturally accurate translation, is done.

This confluence seems to be consistent in the King James Bible, accurate, and it looks like a full explanation of the translation differences, without the need for looking for minority MSS.

Originally Posted by chette777

Strongs has dyzooce and so do few TR MM used but all the alexandrian text say Zues.

Again you are claiming a textual difference (this time based on some TR, not an 'oldest Eastern text'). Again, this textual difference is not shown on sites such as the John Hurt Greek site mentioned above, nor in the apparatus mentioned above. We have the Stephanus and Scrivener TR with dia and dios. Perhaps you have seen a Erasmus or Beza or Elzivir edition that is different, however a specific identity is needed.

I agree that the Strong's word is different, however to go into the import of this more it would be necessary to know what TR you are saying does not have dia.

You are claiming the apparatus is textually incorrect, or at least incomplete based on MSS you have seen but have not specifically identified for us. Can you give a substantive MS that we can look at to see if your claim of an error in the current representations is correct ? How that would effect comparative translation can be a follow-up question.

Originally Posted by chette777

and it is not spelled dysooce it is spelled Zues.

dzyooce is specifically given as a transliterated pronunciation of the Greek word to English. However I think we agree now that this Strong's is suspect here, or at least needs some textual support, since their letters are different than what all the MS available so far online shows.

Originally Posted by chette777

... in Strongs dyzooce is the pronouciation not the greek spelling, he shows the Greek spelling as Zues.

More specifically Zeuvß. I do not know why you reverse the 'e' and the 'u'.

Originally Posted by chette777

Ruckman and others believe in the old manuscripts that use Dios. I checked out the sources Ruckman suggested and found the greek word Dios not dyzooce or zues.

So far I think it is Strong's that has muddied the water. All the MS references I have seen have dia and dios (dioV). I'll wait for you to reference the TR MS with another word before commenting further. e.g. John Hurt has Stephanus 1550, Scrivener 1894, Byzantine and Alexandrian all as dia and dios.

Originally Posted by chette777

the last two according to him is a later corruption. See Ruckmans Commentary on ACTS chapter 14 for some info.

Apparently you are saying that dias is not transliterated as dzyooce, with, I presume, a relatively soft or silent 'd'. See the b-greek comment above, I consider all this secondary to the manuscript question.

You really have not shown any textual corruption yet in any MSS so I can't comment on what is not seen or shown.

Originally Posted by chette777

There is dia but only as a derivitive. Theos is God, Dios is deity, Dia can be both, Zues is zues.

Theos=qeovß=God we agree. Apparently in scholarly circles there is agreement that the Greek dia and dios were used specifically for Zeus in Greek. To say "Dios is deity" outside of that connection is likely unwarranted. Is an alternate word Zeus (Zeuvß) as in Strong's used as more of a straight-line spelling for Zeus in some MSS ? First we would have to identify the MS, then give our conjecture or theory of the import.

Originally Posted by chette777

I have three Greek texts a TR text dios, Strongs Zues and Stephenas Dia.

Stephanus == dia and dios, is a given, in all the sources I have referenced below. You call those two texts but that is simply the two forms, as you yourself indicated, in verse 12 and 13. I do not think you will find any MS separation whatsoever.

And dia (v12) and dios (v13) is also the Alexandrian and Byzantine text given. Despite your sharing, or at least implication, that the Alexandrian text has a different word. Within the TR you would have to indicate your disagreeing TR text for further comparison. Strong's Zeuvß so far is not a manuscript, I would say that this may be a dubious entry from Strong, subject to finding any corroboration. Apparently Strong preferred to use an equivalent proper name spelling in Greek, perhaps he was going off another TR MS. Good question to resolve. And why would the TR be split, if it is.

Originally Posted by chette777

Three different words so you have to prayerfully make a chioce which Greek OR like Ruckman says, this is one of those instances where English is clear and you can throw out the Greek. It is Jupiter but that the Greek word was Dios (deity) and the translators made sure we knew which it was by putting Jupiter there without Italics for that was the deity of that city.

We agree on the essentials of the truth and accuracy of the KJB translation here. However finding those "three different words" in manuscripts has not yet occurred and a lot of your analysis rests on this so far unfound distinction. In fact, I have yet to see even one MS that does not have dia and dios in verse 12 and 13. I cannot really comment on an analysis based on a manuscript distinction that is not specifically identified.

At times I see Peter Ruckman make what I consider scholarly errors, and/or hold difficult or untenable positions. Scholarly errors as we would see from any good prolific writer on textual and translation issues. And sometimes the borderline between an exaggeration or hyperbole and an error is small and subject to the reader's attitude (here I am thinking of another case or two). Sometimes a conjecture is lifted to a factual analysis. And I am not concluding that an error occurs in this analysis, since I have not even seen the textual division that is at base of his analysis. Nor have I seen his complete analysis.

However I can say that without any dual MSS tradition the King James Bible translation is 100% sound and accurate and even superior, that there is no need to go to a MS division for a fuller understanding. So far we have not seen the claimed division. If there is a division, we have not seen that it has had historically any substantive effect, or that it should have any translation effect whatsoever.

Shalom,
Steven